Did you fuel properly for the session? As a 56+ y.o. fast-twitch rider, I finally started fueling properly at 60g-100g/hr since last March. I’ve now broken many PRs by 8%-12% (12-20 minute climbs) when previously, a PR by 2-3 seconds was welcomed. For sub-60 minute TR Z2 session, I may skip fueling, but anything longer, I have to fuel properly; otherwise, hour 2 will be a painful drag.
Good luck with your training.
TR is allergic to volume unless you really really try and force it. Then it puts your endurance closer to 75% and acts shocked when it’s too much.
TR may be allergic to volume but that’s not the issue here. From their initial post it seems they went from 10+ hours week in past years to a few hours per week because they want to focus on “non-bike life”. This individual wasn’t trying to increase their volume from a few hours a week, rather they intentionally decreased volume by approximately 70% from past years. That not the plans fault, that’s a deliberate choice that no plan is going to overcome in a short 5 months.
From how I read OPs post TR is the one prescribing that volume as appropriate for the event(s) they are doing….
If that is the case then yes, this is completely on TR lol.
It will never happen but it would be interesting to see someone like Alex Wild (since all his training is public and does big volume) make a Customized TR Plan and see what kind of training it would give him. How many hours and what TSS do you think AI would assign?
We just don’t know. I could set up a new plan right now with a 7hr A race in 6 months, but if I tell plan builder that I only have 3.5 hours to ride over three days per week then it’s probably not going to give me an optimal plan, right? Hopefully it’ll give me something vaguely close to optimal given those constraints, but that’s not the same thing at all.
Of course. If OP set their max time to 3 hours and is now complaining about not being given enough volume that’s a problem caused by themselves.
We don’t know how OP set up their plan, but assuming they are not deliberately kneecapping the system 
. Hopefully someone from TR can take a look.
That is a good point, I choose to reduce my volume to 2/3/4 hours a week, I knew I wasn’t going to be as strong on the bike as when I trained more. I was going to school at night with a day time job and a family. I was just being naive when I was on school break and went for a spirited 3 hour ride with a friends and blew into a thousand pieces, I didn’t blame the plan, I quickly figured out what did and didn’t work for me.
I wonder where the OP got the message that a 3 hour plan would be adequate for a 4 hour gravel event?
I mean, sure, it could be if you rode those 4 hours at your endurance pace.
It seems like there is a disconnect with the plan name “gravel” and the limited hours chosen.
“ It’s not only possible but often preferable to train for long events with lower volume. “
I’ve been doing 3.5 hours training since December. Since before my gravel event 2 weeks ago I did 60 miles in Feb and 75 the week before the event outdoors no other outdoor riding.
The gravel event was 120 miles and took 11 hours to complete. Yes it wasn’t racing but based on my 2 outdoor rides I’ve done I was happy, my legs felt good all the way round.
I have no doubt the OP could do their gravel event at around zone 2 pace no problem.
if OP is struggling to do z2 for 90 minutes why would they be able to do it for even longer during a race?
Imho this thread isn’t coming across as a constructive discussion - what is it that you want to get from the community on this? I think we get that you’re frustrated with TR from the OP and also every other post, but do you want advice on how to get better value from it or find another product?
It’s pretty easy to have dynamic endurance rides gradually extend your endurance sessions based on your training successes and failures, over time. But it feels like that isn’t the answer you’re looking for?
With the exception of you and mtbjones I found it very contructive so far, with lot of great insights shared by all others minus you two. Somehow also all others were able to read the exact questions I am asking. If you look to argue with someone about trifles, maybe do us the favor and look elsewere?
What would you have done if they’d prescribed you 2 hours? Or 1 hour? Or 30 minutes?
The point being, you’ve been here before over the years. You know all about building CTL and progressive overload. Did you not think at any point “Is what I’m doing right now at least close to optimal, or could I be getting fitter by (sustainably) doing a bit (or a lot) more?”
Hopefully that’s constructive. It just seems that for some reason you temporarily forgot everything you know about endurance training and unquestioningly followed a plan that (for whatever reason) meant that you rode a lot less than you could have.
I don’t get this. If you want TR to design a training plan for 6 or 8 hours per week, you can do so. Even if TR AI thinks you would do too much, you can always override it.
The difference between any sensible 3-hour-per-week plan and an 8-hour-per-week plan is significant. And if you knowingly opted for a plan with too little volume and intensity to match your goals, it is on you, not TR. The situation reminds me of people who drove into rivers, because their GPS told them to.
Think that is quite harsh, when you set a plan up TR says it is analysing all your workouts to give you the best plan based on your events or general fitness option selection, why would anybody sign up to use plan builder and then over ride what it’s telling you? If the OP overrode the plan by adding more endurance and then felt fatigued, everybody would be kicking his head in saying he should’ve stuck to the plan.
Because it is a tool, and there are things that TR may or may not know. For instance, if you look at my training plan in isolation, you could come to the conclusion it is horrible as it includes zero endurance work, just three hard workouts per week. However, I know I commute 5–6 times per week and accumulate about 5–7 hours per week on the bike just from going to and from work as well as running errands.
TR AI is so much better at accommodating various needs and use cases, I cannot stress how much flexibility it gives you.
I don’t see that as contradictory in any way: you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you override TR and TR was right, you should correct your decision. But there are instances where TR may be too conservative with its recommendations.
If you have enough training experience, you should have some idea how much training you can handle.
I also don’t know what TR AI’s volume recommendation was in this particular instance, i. e. whether it claimed anything beyond 3 hours per week is too much or whether this was just the default, because perhaps the athlete hasn’t ridden much in the past few months.